| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
January 31, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
(i) In considering whether the interest paid by an assessee on loans raised for acquisition of new asset, before the same was first put to use, is to be added towards the cost of the asset or the same is to be granted as a revenue expenditure for the reason that the assessee was already in business, the provisions of s 36 (1)(iii) cannot be read in isolation but have to be read with s. 43 (1). DCIT vs. Core Healthcare 251 ITR 61 (Guj) dissented from;
(ii) S. 36(1)(iii) does not confer a deduction orrowed for the purposes of setting up a new unit even in the case of an assessee already in business. Deduction for interest on capital borrowed can be allowed only after the asset is first put to use and starts generating income;
(iii) It is implicit from Expl. 8 to s. 43(1), which provides that interest payable after the asset is put to use shall not be added to the actual cost, that interest payable before the asset is put to use has to be added to the actual cost;
(iv) In conformity with law and accounting principles, interest paid on capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset has to capitalized and cannot be allowed as a revenue deduction till the asset is put to use. There is no distinction between capital borrowed for the setting up of a new business and the expansion of an existing business;
(v) The Proviso to s. 36(1)(iii) inserted by the Finance Act 2003 is to ‘curb tax avoidance’ and is merely clarificatory
Related Posts:
- CIT vs. Sadiq Sheikh (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench) If the ITAT were to have considered the aforesaid circumstances, which, according to us, the ITAT was duty-bound to, we are quite sure that the ITAT would not have, nevertheless, found the so-called explanation of the assessees acceptable or in compliance with the provisions of Section 68 of the said…
- Ivan Singh vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench) The crucial phrase in Section 68 of the IT Act, which provides that the sum so credited in the books and which is not sufficiently explained, may be charged to the income tax as income of the assessee of “that previous year” also lends support to the contentions of Dr.…
- Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (Supreme Court) (Larger Bench) The object of preventing, setting up of false or frivolous defence to set at naught the benefit emanating from amended provisions, has to be given full effect. Otherwise, it would become very easy to deprive the daughter of her rights as a coparcener. When such a defence is taken, the…
- Doshi Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) (Special Bench) The provisions of chapter X are not impeding with the manner of the computation of exemption under section 10A of the Act, but it is to work out the true ALP qua the sale price of the impugned international transaction. Therefore we disregard the contentions of the ld. AR for…
- CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
Recent Comments